every moment that passes has a message but we tend to distort the guide of the moment to the tune of our thinking that it becomes irrelevant..we misinterpret individuality then but we seldom realize..but the message remains the same..we need to go beyond..alas! we seldom go..

The best way to know the self is feeling oneself at the moments of reckoning. The feeling of being alone, just with your senses, may lead you to think more consciously. More and more of such moments may sensitize ‘you towards you’, towards others. We become regular with introspection and retrospection. We get ‘the’ gradual connect to the higher self we may name Spirituality or God or just a Humane Conscious. We tend to get a rhythm again in life. We need to learn the art of being lonely in crowd while being part of the crowd. A multitude of loneliness in mosaic of relations! One needs to feel it severally, with conscience, before making it a way of life. One needs to live several such lonely moments. One needs to live severallyalone.

Sunday, 3 March 2013

FEBRUARY 2013 GENERAL STRIKE OR THE ‘BHARAT BANDH’: THE UNCIVIL CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

Complete write-up

Two days of general strike inIndiawas violence-ridden. Reportedly, it
cost over Rs. 25,000 crore. The ‘Bharat Bandh’ of February 20-21, 2013 evoked
a mixed response as has been happening with every other ‘Bandh’ by the
political parties or the trade unions that in turn, are affiliated with
this or that political party or ideology.

It can be said from the
places where the ‘Bandh’ saw establishments shutting down, it was more from the
fear of vandalism and not because of the camaraderie to join the brotherhood of
‘Bandh’ supporters.

It is always easier for
the government employees to participate in such ‘Bandhs’ as they can easily go
to avail an off day but most of the private sector entities, vulnerable to
their balance-sheets and unfriendly towards employees, usually abstain from
such practices unless and until there is a great call, something that the
country has not seen post the call by Vinoba Bhave or the Jayaprakash Narayan
Movement or the Lohia Wave, when there could be a complete shutdown on mere a
call from a leader for a cause or a cause itself.

Also, the February
20-21 ‘Bharat Bandh’ had not any immediate precursor like some fuel price
hike or introduction of a controversial policy like the Retail FDI. The country
has already seen mixed-response ‘Bandhs’ over these issues.

The September 20, 2012
‘Bharat Bandh’ to protest the fuel price hike and the Retail FDI decision
evoked a mixed response, claims and counterclaims. The ‘Bharat Bandh’ called by
the political opposition on May 31, 2012 to protest the steep hike in petrol
prices was a similar story. The country saw similar developments during the
July 5, 2012 ‘Bharat Bandh’ called again by the political opposition to protest
the fuel price hike. Then there was yet again ‘Bharat Bandh’ called by the
trade unions in February 2012.

So, there wasn’t any
‘newness’ in the factor to call the strike. But the general strike was called.

But was it really civil
disobedience?

Mahatma Gandhi, who
introduced (or invented) ‘Bandhs’ or ‘civil disobedience through complete halt
of work’ in India had certainly different thoughts and commitment about ‘Badhs’
as means of protest.

The following
conversation from the movie ‘Gandhi’ beautifully explains it. (Text sourced
from the Internet.)

JINNAH'S DRAWING ROOM

PATEL:Well, I've called you here because
I've had a chance to see the new legislation. It's exactly what was rumored.
Arrest without warrant. Automatic imprisonment for possession of materials
considered seditious...Your writings are specifically listed.

KRIPALANI:So much for helping them in the Great
War...

JINNAH:There is only one answer to that.
Direct action – on a scale they can never handle!

NEHRU:I don't think so. Terrorism would
only justify their repression. And what kinds of leaders would it throw up? Are
they likely to be the men we would want at the head of our country?

His stand has
produced a little shock of surprise. Holding his tea, he turns to Gandhi with a
little smile.

NEHRU:I've been catching up on my reading.

JINNAH:I too have read Mr. Gandhi's
writings, but I'd rather be ruled by an Indian terrorist than an English one.
And I don't want to submit to that kind of law.

GANDHI:If I may – I, for one, have never
advocated passive anything. I am with Mr. Jinnah. We must never submit to such
laws – ever. And I think our resistance must be active and provocative. I want
to embarrass all those who wish to treat us as slaves. All of them.

He holds their gaze,
then turns to the immobile servant and with a little smile, takes the tray from
him and places it on the table next to him. It makes them all aware that the
servant, standing there like an insensate ornament, has been treated like a
"thing," a slave. As it sinks in, Gandhi pours some tea then looks up
at them with a pleading warmth – first to Jinnah.

GANDHI:Forgive my stupid illustration. But I
want to change their minds – not kill them for weaknesses we all possess.

AZAD:And what "resistance" would
you offer?

GANDHI:The law is due to take effect from
April sixth. I want to call on the nation to make that a day of prayer and
fasting.

"Prayer and
fasting"? They are not overwhelmed.

JINNAH:You mean a general strike?

GANDHI:I mean a day of prayer and fasting. But
of course no work could be done – no buses, no trains, no factories, no
administration. The country would stop.

Patel is the first to
recognize the implications.

PATEL:My God, it would terrify them . . .

AZAD:Three hundred fifty million people at
prayer. Even the English newspapers would have to report that. And explain why.

KRIPALANI:But could we get people to do it?

NEHRU:Champaran stirred the whole country.
(To Gandhi) They are calling you Mahatma – the Great Soul.

GANDHI:Fortunately such news comes very
slowly where I live.

NEHRU:I think if we all worked to publicize
it . . . all of the Congress . . . every avenue we know.

=================================================================

Now that is the concept
of ‘Bandh’ as the Mahatma had proposed and yes, it was not at all a passive
act. It terrified the British as Sardar Patel had reacted on Mahatma’s
proposal.

It was beginning of
Mahatma’s experiments with civil disobedience as the tool to reorient and
direct the Indian freedom struggle that ultimately led the country to theIndependence.

It is not that the civil
disobedience movements called by the Mahatma didn’t have any violent incidents.
It is about how the Mahatma reacted on it. It is about the countrywide support
on Mahatma’s call.

The ‘Bandhs’ inIndiaof today are in stark contrast to what
a ‘civil disobedience’ movement ought to be (and certainly, the Mahatma’s way
is the most powerful one).

A friend
whose office was in Noida, called me up on the first day of the ‘Bandh’.
Panicked, he informed me the glass façade of his office was broken, many cars
in the parking lot were damaged and the office furniture was thrown out and
some of it burnt. The ‘Bandh’ guys had threatened to come back again if the
office was not closed to support the general strike.

As usual, the
call to the police for help proved to be a futile exercise. Instead of
registering the complaint and coming for help, the policeman on the phone said
the force was helpless as there were so many cases of violence and advised to
close down the office.

Many of the
corporate honchos and the trading class businessmen, who had decided to remain
open on the days of the general strike, closed down their operations on the
day-2 of the ‘Bharat Bandh’. My friend’s office was one among them.
Incidentally, it was not due to the fear of harm to the employees but to the
property that drove them to day-2 shut down.

The two-day
‘Bharat Bandh’ evoked a mixed response as reported. It was successful in states
like Kerala or Tripura where the Left parties have strong presence (most of the
trade unions follow the Left ideology). In West Bengal,
the plains saw a complete ‘Bandh’ while the hills remained open.

Elsewhere, it
was varying in terms of success. Banks didn’t function at all as the strike was
supported by the unions of the bank employees. Many state transport unions as
well as the auto unions of Delhi
and Mumbai had also called strikes or had decided to participate in the ‘Bharat
Bandh’. Government offices and other establishments saw less attendance due to
the poor public transportation.

Had it been
this (peaceful protests where people who participated had volunteered for the
‘Bandh’), this could have been indeed called a success.

But the
‘Bandh’ saw many incidents of violence, arson, loot and damage to property.
Factories were attacked. People not conforming to the idea of the ‘Bandh’ met
with bloody treatment. In West Bengal, the
ruling TMC party workers chopped off the ear of a panchayat worker who did not
come to the office on day-1 of the ‘Bandh’.

To crown the
success in their ‘terms’ the Left parties warned of a bigger general strike if
the demands were not met immediately.

It was akin
to endorse the violence during the ‘Bandh’. It was not what the Mahatma had
proposed.

A case of
‘Chauri Chaura’ violence hurt the Mahatma so much that he called off the hugely
popular and successful Non-cooperation movement of 1922 and went on to observe a
three-week fast to repent for the violence that killed 22 policemen. The
Mahatma thus set an epoch-making example giving India
totally successful and absolutely peaceful non-violence civil protests or
Satyagrahas including the Salt Satyagraha and the Quit India Movement that
pushed the British to leave India.

It was only
the power of the Mahatma’s Satyagraha that he conveyed through his fasts that
could end the violence erupted in the aftermath of the India-Pakistan partition
in 1947.

That was the
civil disobedience practiced by the Mahatma. The current culture of ‘Bandhs’ is
contrary to that. Gandhiji was a call. Gandhiji had become a cause. Gandhiji is
still the call the country needs to take. Gandhiji is still the cause the
country needs to follow.

Yes, civil
disobedience is a way to protest the government apathy, to oppose the
anti-people policies.

Yes, it has
to be active and provocative like the Mahatma said during the meeting in
Jinnah’s house.

But forcing
people to protest the government apathy is not civil disobedience. It will only
promote fear and hence an atmosphere of distrust that will ultimately kill the
cause, even if it was the most pressing need of the time.

And that is
already happening with ‘Bandhs’ of India. Though, the ‘Bandhs’ evoke
mixed response based on the political affiliation and area-wise political
influence, these are now the distorted tools of protest disrupting the normal
course of life without producing any desirable result.

The country
has not seen any response by any of the governments, from states or the union,
on the demands of the ‘Bandh’ supporters.

Because a
violence-ridden ‘Bandh’ lacks the moral sanctity to press, even for the
rightful demands!

It
is well known by now that when the ‘Bandhs’ are called by the political parties
or when the election time is not near, the ruling political group doesn’t care
much about it.

The
‘Bharat Bandh’ on May 31, 2012 didn’t see the prime minister appealing the concerned
parties to call-off the ‘Bandh’. Similar was the story during the July 5, 2012
‘Bharat Bandh’. The prime minister didn’t make any appeal even during the
September 20, 2012 ‘Bharat Bandh’.

Then,
elections were still pretty far away.

During
this ‘Bharat Bandh’, it was the time, to seriously think about the elections
which are just some quarters away. So, even if there was not any immediate spark,
the government was looking at it with watchful eyes.

Also,
the call this time was not by the mainstream political opposition. Involvement
of the central trade unions as well as the banking and transportation unions,
which represent a considerable segment of the population, was enough to make
the government feel nervous in case the ‘Bandh’ got a widespread support.

And
so, we had, our comfortably-numb prime minister appealing the trade unions to
call-off the strike.

But
the violence during the ‘Bandh’ gave the government the necessary
counter-points to hit back and questioning the authority and morality of the
‘Bandh’, two factors a must for any civil disobedience movement – authority of
non-violence and morality of rightfulness – as the Mahatma has shown the way –
as we saw in the massive public protests during the anti-corruption movement
called by Anna Hazare or the leaderless massive but peaceful civil protests
against the Delhi gangrape of December 16, 2012.

These
movements were active and provocative enough to awaken millions and bring an
arrogant government to the talking table. Whatever has been the outcome; there
were moments when millions felt it was their duty to be the part of the
protests to raise the voice against the System and the systemic corruption.

This
‘Bharat Bandh’ or to say any other in the recent past, has been an utter
failure on being active and provocative to motivate and mobilize masses for a cause
because they were not peaceful and lacked in moral authority.

Followers

Banaras Calling

http://www.banarascalling.com/

About Me

thinking, reading, n writing to fill my spaces-all this with visiting unseen places-a lot of doing n just my soul to company me-isn't it life at its best, if i can be at it-realizing every moment of life, i just need to have this in my life..

Pages

Intellectual Property Right

Unless otherwise mentioned, all content, every word and visual, is created by Santosh Chaubey who holds all intellectual property rights of this site. The views and ideas expressed and represented here solely belong to Santosh Chaubey, creator of this site. Any copying or republishing can only be done after written permission from the owner of intellectual property rights.